|
Interesting how this thread is just bursting with intelligent replies!  (there are some good ones)
Very interesting topic, DJKatheda, and I will try to argue against your position. 
I believe that trance is indeed also molded to the "lowest common denominator" formula. Think about it! Every track has an intro, breakdown, climax, outro. Maybe 2 breakdowns and climax. It is so damn predictable. This is in no way a criticism of trance. I mean, hell classical music also fits into a formula.
Perhaps all types of music are molded onto a "lowest common denominator" (hereafter just named "formula"). You just have to be attuned to that form of music enough to be able to tell the formula. Let me give you a concrete example: all the trance dj's out there will agree with me when I say that mixing trance is (once you get past the technical skill of beatmatching etc) as easy as pie. It all works the same damn way. Beatmatch, throw in a track near the end, bring it in, etc., done. And you know why you can do this? Because of consistency. All the tracks are molded to fit a particular formula so that not much thinking is required on the dj's part. Of course, if you want to be creative you have to stretch that big muscle up there... but otherwise, you can (almost) mix trance in your sleep.
Hip-hop is probably the same, though I can't personally vouch for that. Just because TA's will tend not to like hip-hop, doesn't mean that it's "simpler" automatically. Of course, the very reason why it's disliked may be for its very simplicity! But then again, I think that tranceaddicts don't like hiphop in general because of the presence of words, as well as the content of the lyrics themselves. I.e. there's not much to enjoy with the themes of bitches, hoes, bling-bling et al. being repeated ad nauseam. People like hip-hop, pop, and other genres with lyrics because, IMO, there are certain images (as well as brands, like you said DJKatheda) associated with those genres. That's why all the fans of a certain genre have a certain attitude... (warning: SEVERE stereotyping coming up)
i.e. the hip-hop people tend to be "ghetto" and "phat" (lol), the punksters (is that even a term?) tend to be skaters, "rebels" against authority and what-not.
Although, there are also images and attitudes associated with music without lyrics, as we all know about the junglists. Even the ravers and their happy hardcore (or hardcore or whatever). But even in that instance I believe it is for the image that people are attached to those genres rather than because of the music itself. (junglists for being...junglish  ... and ravers for being "underground" and "non-mainstream") Not to mention the drug factor in the latter case... ( )
Um, so where does trance fit in? Trance is unique in that there is no base image or set of attitudes associated with it. If anything, it would be openness and acceptance. (which it should be!) Especially some of the more underground variants such as psy trance.
So this shows that there is, after all, something in trance other than the formula. I guess this "something else" is what is so enticing. Let's give it a name: emotion, perhaps? I think that's probably it. Uplifting emotion, though it's special because it means different things to different people. For some, trance is very sad (in a good way) while others see nothing but the euphoria, hands-in-the-air aspect. So YMMV. This is what I think makes trance special.
Of course, I haven't gotten into Prog or techno or anything like that, because I do want to finish this post within my lifetime.
To conclude, I think that trance is definitely geared for a "lowest common denominator", even if it's not done so in a corporate way (which would be bad). Let's hope it doesn't come to that because, I'm certain, it would spell the end for trance as we know it. (i.e. it would be cheesed beyond belief, and people would shift to other, lesser known variants. Or turn into progheads.  )
Last edited by Alccode on Apr-21-2003 at 21:18
|
